Not all inputs covered in Management Review - NC?

If asked whether we considered the issues, I can just verbally explain to the auditor that the topics at our management committee (ManCom) meetings have considered those 9.3.2 inputs that are relevant. We don't treat each input as an agenda to the ManCom meetings as most organizations do by having a checklist-type of minutes of the meeting. The agenda on our ManCom (at least once a month) may vary depending on the pressing issues that we need to discuss. For example:

• In January 2019, when we review whether our performance targets were achieved for the last quarter of Y2018 - we can verbally explain to the auditor that 9.3.2c.2; 9.3.2c.3 and 9.3.2c.5 were covered;
• At any month, if we had major product issues or complaint from a customer that we need to resolve during a ManCom meeting - we can verbally explain to the auditor that 9.3.2c.1; 9.3.2c.3 and 9.3.2c.4 were covered;
• When our Purchasing Manager presents the quarterly performance of the suppliers, including issues with suppliers that must be resolved - we can verbally explain to the auditor that 9.3.2c.7; 9.3.2c.5 and 9.4.2c.4 were covered;
• When our Internal Auditor presents their audit results or our Operations Manager presents the customer audit results with NCs and OFIs respectively - we can verbally explain to the auditor that 9.3.2c.1; 9.4.2c.4; 9.3.2c.6 and 9.3.2f were covered;
• Since our Internal Auditor is tasked to evaluate effectiveness of the actions to address risks, a summary of the evaluation comes with the audit report - thus 9.3.2e is also covered;
• Every ManCom meeting, the plan of actions to address issues raised from previous meetings are verified - thus 9.3.2a is covered;
• When we discussed about the construction of a new plant on another province - this clearly covered 9.3.2b and 9.3.2d

All the ManCom meetings are minuted but not in the style of a checklist as per 9.3.2. We file them one-binder per year. So if CB auditors come to audit every year, I just have to get a binder and show and explain to the auditor should he/she ask whether we considered the 9.3.2 inputs.

 

What is your definition of an "evidence"?

 

You claim that you're an auditor. And you only accept record/s as the only form of evidence/s? I provided a definition from ISO 19011:2018 and it clearly stated that "statements of fact" is one form of an evidence. I even provided a reference from APG Guidance by the IAF that says "Auditors should be aware that objective evidence does not necessarily depend on the existence of documented information, except where specifically mentioned in ISO 9001".

When I offer my position, I, usually, see to it that it is backed by relevant references. The same is true when I audit. There must be objectivity.

 

Not entirely true. ISO 17021-1:2015 calls the organization whose management system is being audited for certification purposes a "client". CB organizations are external providers of certification services. They are not regulatory bodies. If an organization deems that they are being served by incompetent providers, they can terminate the business. That's where "fool-proofing" the system comes to play.

We've previously fire a CB auditor and ordered the CB to not send the troublesome auditor on future audits because that auditor cannot accept that the "strategic objectives" of our top management are "quality objectives". In a previous organization, we fire the CB because their auditor cannot accept that internal monitoring of air emissions cannot be a substitute to external monitoring, where no requirements exists.

 

Darn, I missed all the fun.

 

I agree with verbal evidence. But how does the auditor know you're not BSing him? I had one auditor tell me if it wasn't "written" it didn't happen. He no longer audits us.

 

Then what you've experienced is a perfect example of "fool-proofing" a system against incompetent auditors. A competent auditor can discern whether he/she is being fooled by the auditee. A competent auditor doesn't need to see a checklist to be convinced that the 9.3.2 inputs were covered. Anybody can, actually, fabricate a checklist-type minutes of the meeting with entries on each input, make the statements believable as if they were really discussed or set aside for the meantime, present them to the auditor and - voila! Auditor is happy.

 

[QUOTE="You have to complete the statement which is, categorically, "The organization shall retain documented information as evidence of the results of management reviews". The standard requires retaining of documented information as "evidence of the results" and not "evidence of inputs covered" or "evidence of management reviews".[/QUOTE]

can you elaborate more on this. Because by providing evidence of "evidence of inputs covered" or "evidence of management reviews" we already cover the evidence of the results.

So can you tell me what do u mean evidence of the result. What type of document information will fulfill the requirement "evidence of the result"?

 

hi Can you us what is the other method to conduct management review beside meeting. Some detailed explanation not to burden. Thank you,